Skip to main content

About your Search

20121101
20121130
Search Results 0 to 3 of about 4 (some duplicates have been removed)
are they going to do about california. for me, that is the big question. california, the prop 8 decision where voters of california voted to allow same-sex marriages and then a few months later voted to write into the state constitution that such unions were illegal. if the supreme court decides not to take up that case, then people in california -- gay people in california would be able to get married almost immediately. but if they do take up the case, then the question of a right to marry goes to the supreme court. very fascinating time. >> are you surprised that they decided not to -- >> yes, i am surprised. and i will be even more surprised if they don't do something on monday. i think a lot of people are waiting. >> i'm hoping that the supreme court will weigh in on this. i want to see the courts and perhaps the legislature deal with this and not leave to the voters because the voters often get these things wrong. i don't think civil rights question shoes go to voters partly because you get into the thing of the whim of the voters and where the political whims are. we don't vote in this
, congressman from california. they both gave thifr interpretations. peter king said petraeus said he didn't know who are on when the cia intelligence talking points were edited, and shift said that petraeus said that the reason they were edited was to protect classified information. now, i talked to a former cia counterintelligence official today who said that both of those aassessessments can't rea live in the same word, so maybe there's some misinterpretation of what petraeus said. you can't believe on the one hand petraeus didn't know why the talking points were edited and on the other he had a perfectly good explanation for why the points were edited. make we'll get more on that. i think that we have a deeper understanding here after today about why david petraeus so badly want upped to come out and set the record straight. he didn't want on record that cia intelligence was bad and that was the reason. so that "wall street journal" report we saw yesterday talking about petraeus in his final days at the cia really wanting to come out and talk publicly. we have a greater sense of why th
, california striking down their three-strikes law. that says let's not have nonviolent drug offenders go away to jail for a long time. judges and police say this is a losing battle. let's move towards treatment and decriminalization and treat it like alcohol rather than prohibition and criminalization. we have a mexican president saying, hey, let's look at a different way to treat this thing. let's talk about what he recently said. in favor of opening a new debate in the strategy in the way we fight drug traffickings. it's clear after several decades we have more drug consumption, drug use, drug trafficking. things are not working. a change in the drug policy would have a massive impact on the economy and on crime in both north america and throughout south america, and would lead the way and open the path toward a more humane immigration policy and people in america accepting them. >> i think you're right. it's been interesting. as things have moved politically in terms of the war on drugs, we've also, of course, seen after this election potential movement on comprehensive immigration reform.
Search Results 0 to 3 of about 4 (some duplicates have been removed)